UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7342

ROBERT EARL VANCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JURELL
BYRD,
Jail
Administrator;
PATSIE
JOHNSON, Jail Official; KATHY FRANKLIN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(CA-04-715-8-RBH)

Submitted: January 26, 2006

Decided: February 2, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Earl Vance, Appellant Pro Se.

Russell W. Harter, Jr.,
CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
Robert Earl Vance appeals the district courts order
granting summary judgment to Defendants in Vances 42 U.S.C. 1983
(2000) suit. The district court referred this case to a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

The magistrate

judge issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended

granting summary judgment to Defendants.

The district court

adopted the report and recommendation, finding that Vance failed to

file specific objections.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judges

report

and

recommendation

is

necessary

to

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the

parties

have

been

warned

that

failure

to

object

will

waive

appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

On

appeal, Vance does not challenge the district courts conclusion

that his objections were merely general.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b)

(failure to raise claim in informal brief waives consideration of

that claim).

Accordingly, we conclude that Vance has waived

appellate review of both the substance of the magistrate judges

report and the district courts construction of his objections.

- 2 -

Thus, we affirm the order of the district court.

dispense

with

oral

argument,

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

- 3 -